AYISU Vs. SAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, who has instituted two separate suits before the trial court, have come up with these appeals. One Ayidru, of whom appellants are the legal representatives, filed two suits as O.S. Nos. 378 of 1987 and 379 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. O.S. No. 378 of 1987 was for declaration that Sale Deed No. 1619/1977 is only a mortgage deed, as the parties intended to execute only a mortgage deed as security for the loan advanced and for permitting the plaintiff to pay back Rs. 4,400/- and to get back the properties from respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that in order to protect his properties having an extent of 61 cents in Sy. Nos. 867/3 & 367/2 from sale in court auction by Dharmodayam Company, Trichur, in a suit filed by them as O.S. No. 45 of 1973, which was decreed in favour of the company, respondents 1 and 2 agreed to help late Ayidru. However, they wanted security for the loan to be advanced by them. The document was written as sale deed in favour of respondents 1 and 2. However, there was a simultaneous oral agreement between the parties that the buyers would re-convey the property on payment of Rs. 4,400/- with interest. When the said money with interest was offered, the buyers refused to execute re-conveyance deed. Thus, the suit.

(3.) In O.S. No. 379 of 1987, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the same as in O.S. No. 378 of 1987. Defendants 1 and 2 are one Saidu and one Muhammed respectively. Except the suit property, defendants 1 and 2 and the documents sought to be set aside, other pleadings and statement of facts in O.S. No. 379 of 1987 are similar to that of the pleadings in O.S. No. 378 of 1987. In O.S. No. 379 of 1987, there is a prayer for declaration that document No. 1618/1977 permitted to create only a mortgage transaction and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property. As per plaint averments, the suit properties in both the suits are lying adjacent contiguously.